3 ms·

the actual (and also initial) claim here is that the myth is true, the author is simply pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to support the myth, an

the actual (and also initial) claim here is that the myth is true, the author is simply pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to support the myth, and thus we fall back on the null hypothesis, aka the default: that there does not yet exist sufficient evidence to conclude the myth is anything other than false. > But that doesn't mean we assume the opposite of the claim must be true until they do. It means we assume ignorance. Regardless of the wording, the gist is the same: we /don't/ assume ignorance, we treat the claim, like Russell's teapot [0], or any other unsupported claim, as false until such evidence arises, since there are an infinite number of unfalsifiable premises, and we neither want to, nor do, in practice, treat them all as maybe true, maybe not, forever. tl;dr: As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, yes, there is a default, and that is that a thing is false unless sufficient evidence exists to believe otherwise. No, we don't treat all unfalsified (and unfalsifiable) hypotheses as unknown and assume ignorance. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

calderknight 3y ago
You have cited that Wikipedia page five times. But it doesn't say anything about there being such a default view.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  It actually does, that's why I cited it so many times! :) In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy: > "...nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice..."[0] Replace 'teapot revolving in orbit' with 'truth to the staircase fighting myth' – hopefully you now see why it's ridiculous to entertain all hypotheses as equally likely without evidence. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  - calderknight 3y ago
    There's a difference between thinking something false and thinking the thing insufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. Russell's teapot argument is about so-called unfalsifiable theories, not about all things.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > There's a difference between thinking something false and thinking the thing insufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. That's just it – there isn't. There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. > Russell's teapot argument is about so-called unfalsifiable theories, not about all things The point of Russell's teapot, as Russell explained, and I quoted, is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it as false, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises. It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory. Either way, I think the fighting staircase theory, like the teapot theory, is not falsifiable, but anyone is free to show it is, by falsifying it.
      - ncallaway 3y ago
        > That's just it – there isn't. Well, the next time I find myself in a melee battle within a castle and am deciding whether I should fight my way up the stairs, I'm going to draw a distinction between: "Is absolutely false", and "We don't know whether it was true or false", and I'm going to let someone else go up the stairs first...
      - calderknight 3y ago
        > That's just it – there isn't. This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. > we should, and do, treat it unproven Do you mean disproved here, rather than unproven? I think that when we know something has been neither proved nor disproved we should treat it as unproven (because it is unproven), but that does not mean we should assume that it is false.

calderknight 3y ago

You have cited that Wikipedia page five times. But it doesn't say anything about there being such a default view.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
It actually does, that's why I cited it so many times! :) In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy: > "...nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice..."[0] Replace 'teapot revolving in orbit' with 'truth to the staircase fighting myth' – hopefully you now see why it's ridiculous to entertain all hypotheses as equally likely without evidence. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- calderknight 3y ago
  There's a difference between thinking something false and thinking the thing insufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. Russell's teapot argument is about so-called unfalsifiable theories, not about all things.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > There's a difference between thinking something false and thinking the thing insufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. That's just it – there isn't. There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. > Russell's teapot argument is about so-called unfalsifiable theories, not about all things The point of Russell's teapot, as Russell explained, and I quoted, is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it as false, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises. It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory. Either way, I think the fighting staircase theory, like the teapot theory, is not falsifiable, but anyone is free to show it is, by falsifying it.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      > That's just it – there isn't. Well, the next time I find myself in a melee battle within a castle and am deciding whether I should fight my way up the stairs, I'm going to draw a distinction between: "Is absolutely false", and "We don't know whether it was true or false", and I'm going to let someone else go up the stairs first...
    - calderknight 3y ago
      > That's just it – there isn't. This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. > we should, and do, treat it unproven Do you mean disproved here, rather than unproven? I think that when we know something has been neither proved nor disproved we should treat it as unproven (because it is unproven), but that does not mean we should assume that it is false.